Subscribe To No Dhimmitude

Saturday, May 01, 2010

A failed car bomb shut down Times Square on Saturday night, causing panic, evacuations and confusion on one of the tourist spot's busiest and most crowded nights.

Police said a Nissan Pathfinder at West 45th Street and Seventh Avenue was loaded with a bomb made of electrical components, three propane gas tanks and two additional gas canisters. They received the call about the suspicious vehicle around 6:30 p.m. and blocked the area from West 43rd to 47th streets along Broadway and Seventh Avenue wwith metal railings. Parts of 48th Street were also closed.

Mr. Browne said gunpowder had been found in the vehicle, but not a high-grade explosive. The timing device was a clock attached to wires. The gasoline was in cans and there appeared to be two or three propane tanks.

A federal official said that domestic security officials had been informed that the event did not appear to be a terrorist threat. The official referred all requests for additional information to New York City police.

Mr. Barry said that if it had functioned, “it would be more of an incendiary event” than an explosion.

The Lion King and God of Carnage and a couple of other Broadway plays at Times Square were postponed. That gets much coverage in the press. I felt I should mention it too, given how important it is in a story about a car bomb in Times Square on a Saturday evening. Like Dustin Hoffman playing a Tomato for a commercial in the movie Tootsie, I have to ask, as a serious actor: "What's my motivation?"

You know how hard it is to find parking in Tinytown, Kansas? Well, try finding that perfect spot in Manhattan on a Saturday evening.

Comment from Jason, 02 May 2010 3:44p.m:

This was next to 1515 Broadway, Viacom/MTV Networks. MTV Networks includes Comedy Central, which broadcasts South Park.

Here is a sampling of commentary from Canada, the famous CBC and its deepest thinkers in the comments section on the above story.

Busy as a bee, Bobbie Bees writing at the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) leaves this comment for the world and posterity:

Sounds to me like a CIA ploy to divert attention away from the Gulf of Mexico fiasco.Making a car bomb can't be that hard, after all they seem to go off in the Midle East like clockwork, yet this one just 'smoked?' Sounds more like a smoke screen. Oh well, gotta keep the paranioa going somehow, right?"

I must say, this story reeks of "false flag event". Now, who would want to fill an SUV with gasoline, propane, wire and explosives and then let it sit in Times Square, to be "discovered" after an emergency call stating the vehicle was on fire. "Suspicious" indeed.

You've likely heard that Americans tried to exterminate Indians by transmitting smallpox in donated blankets, a forerunner of Nazi extermination campaigns. I asked my wife of the time if such is true, she being in medicine. No, it's not likely that anyone tried to spread small pox in blankets, she said, shortly prior to telling me about my own failings as a human being. But I'm not nearly so interesting as smallpox in the New World. So, if ever you've wondered about this story, wondered or just assumed it to be true, follow, as did Truepeers who sent me this link, the real story of yet another myth about the evils of America. Leftard lies exposed yet again. (And don't be fooled by my ex-wife's tales about me either.)

Smallpox, Indians, and Germ Warfare

The story of the British spreading smallpox as a form of germ warfare against the American Indians in the years before the Revolutionary War has received wide attention in recent years. But is it true or merely politically-inspired disinformation? Lord Jeffery Amherst was the commanding general of British forces in North America during the final battles of the French and Indian war (1754-1763). During this war, the French allied with the Indians in an attempt to drive the British out of North America. The evidence that suggests a possible "germ warfare" tactic during this war consists entirely of postscripts attached to the ends of two letters from Colonel Henry Bouquet during Pontiac's Rebellion:

Colonel Henry Bouquet to General Amherst, dated 13 July 1763:

P.S. I will try to inocculate the the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with english dogs, supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.

This is a worthwhile look into the anti-American nonsense that passes for educated discourse these days, though this particular story has been floating around for 40 years or more. Yes, it's bull. But, what about Eskimos having 172 words for snow? That has to be true, doesn't it...?

Cartoonists are asked to draw a non-incendiary picture of the prophet Mohammed, just doing everyday things like taking a walk, having a beer, watching the Super Bowl, etc. I drew one of Mo on a surfboard. Mo-Daddy ain't no Ho-Daddy. Anyway, my entry is below.

Stogie's account of walking past the Beemer house is one of the high points of my reading experience.

But, says me before I was scooped and reminded of it:

I was snooping around the sub-basement at the local archives today and to my complete amazement I saw a box of old vacation photos that came from Medina, Arabia. I took a peek, and there, lo and behold, was a shot of Mohammed at the beach with a couple of babes on each arm. They were stark raking nekked, so I cut them out and left Mohammed himself so as not to offend anyone; and here I present to the world the one and only prophet Mohammed in the photo'd flesh at the beach on vacation at Medina, c. 625 A.D.

Today we see that Sweden has banned the two South Park cartoon episodes in question.

The Swedish affiliate of broadcaster Comedy Central has said it will not show two controversial episodes of US satirical cartoon show South Park depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad in a bear costume, Aftonbladet reports.

"Comedy Central has decided not to air these two episodes of South Park. It is a decision we've made with great reluctance. Comedy Central believes strongly in creative freedom of expression; when unique and deeply insightful creative talents like those behind South Park are able to express themselves freely, we all benefit.

"However, the safety of our employees is our unquestioned number one priority, and therefore we have decided to take these precautionary measures," the broadcaster explained in a statement released to Aftonbladet.

"Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." V.I. Lenin, "D. Engels On the Importance of the Theoretical Struggle," What is to be done? BURNING QUESTIONS of our MOVEMENT. 1.

There is some nonsense squabbling going on among anti-jihadis recently, not merely the public mental illness on display by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, but further afield, among some whom I respect as writers and thinkers, not Dinesh D'Sousa or Lawrence Auster but from Andrew Bostom, Diana West, and Robert Spencer, among others. Such is the nature of political/social movements. Refer to Christianity, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, Arius and Ireneaus, as examples of sectarianism; or to Robespierre and Danton, Saint Just and Marat from the French Revolution; or Lenin and Plekhanov and Stalin and Trotsky from the Russian Revolution. Sectarian battles are the nature of our game. It's either naive or sentimental to think we have to like each other and compromise on issues of import for the sake of a unified front against our enemies. That is untrue. What matters to us as revolutionaries, for such we are, is success in our efforts. As revolutionaries we are at war, in an immediate "killing and dying" sense, against not only the jihad but against our own Left dhimmi fascist component within Modernity itself. Each day around the world we experience the murder of many at the hands of jihadis bent on Islamic domination of the world and its peoples. It has been such with Islam since Mohammed returned to Mecca in January 630, known to Muslims as Fatah-e-Mubeen or The Glorious Victory. Islam too has its internecine struggles, as we see in the murders of Ali and his family and the advent of Shi'a. There is no purity, and sentimentality does not benefit us. In a revolutionary struggle such as ours, there is victory or there is death. That is hardly an over-statement, given the obvious aggression of Islam since 623 A.D., when Mohammed and his followers, based at Yathrib, renamed Madinat un-Nabi, "City of the Prophet," began their terror campaign that continues to this day. Factionalism occurred during the days and years following Mohammed's succession; it continues to this day among Muslims; we face factionalism among ourselves. Where we fail and others have succeeded is in our lack of revolutionary theory to base a revolutionary movement of triumph for the sake of universal Modernity. Without a revolutionary theory, our revolutionary movement will not live, will not grow, will not triumph, and we and ours will die. So let the others squabble; and let us plan our revolutionary theory.

Are we revolutionaries?

Indeed we are, and the most disruptive of the world order that history and man have ever seen or dreamt. But! But we are conservators of our cultures, our lands' traditions, our social orders. Not revolutionaries, we are, if not conservatives, preservers of the norm. We wish to preserve our way of life from harm and outright destruction. No, it is they who are revolutionaries, bringers of chaotic and harmful change, and destruction. No revolutionaries, we.

We are in fact the demiurges of destruction, makers of new worlds, creators of a new life for man on Earth. What life has been for man immemorially, we have laid it waste and destroyed it worldwide. We few. We happy few.Those few who ceased their endless round of hunting and gathering like beasts in the wild and who settled and planted are our prototypes, revolutionaries of Agriculture. They began our cities, our Polis; they began our shared living among strangers, our Civitas; they began our long march to a Communion of Equals, our Relgio. The agricultural revolution. It was nothing compared to what our recent ancestors did to the life of man. And they are nothing compared to us, we who are revolutionaries of Promethean stature. "We are now become death. We are destroyers of worlds." We are indeed revolutionaries.

Circa 1750 in the cold mists of England a new revolutionary surge began that has, over the days and weeks and years since, now evolving into centuries, transformed LIfe itself, the very living materials of being, into works of Man himself. We are destroyers; we are creators; we are demi-gods. The Triune Revolution, that of Industry which turned man's pitiful physical energies into this profound and universal mental energy that propels us to further orbits than the Earth's; the American Revolution that frees man from poverty and privilege and feudalist slavery, allowing man to become Man; and the French Revolution, that blood bath of the parasites of mankind that shows us the universality of Liberty, Brotherhood, and Equality; that Triune Revolution is still so new, so young, so feeble in its steps toward maturity that we still stumble and sometimes fall, always rising to move on further, faster, more capably, gives us a prominent place in the pantheon of Titans, of Olympians, of Gods. That pitiful and starving creature that was man, hostage to cruel yet mindless Nature and the brute force of evil men, is now free: Revolutionary!

We few. This freedom we have, this revolution in human relations to man and nature, is limited to a few across the world. Too few, that which is the right of every man. Those who have this precious freedom stand to lose it to those who hate the freedom of Man. they, the reactionaries who delight in the previous regime, the state of man as farm animal tended and bled for the satisfaction of the Gnostic sadist elite, for the sake of the communal cowards and masochist toadies. Not everyone loves freedom. Some hate it more than death. In fact, it is death they love, the grandness of death as spectacle of their worthless transformation into the eternal. The worm-ridden soul of the dhimmi clinging to his illusions of moralism as his high-point in life acheived in death as heroism ans validation of the rightness of his moralistic suffering, demands that all obey his dhimmitude and laud it, suffer for his moral vanity and spectacle of suffering, as if we care, as if his worthless existence is redeemed by death, as if his death after a worthless life is sacrificial and ennobling. Good bye, dhimmi. They hate our freedom, our happiness, our love of life, our lowly private selves as individuals free from their moralistic "suffering" for humanity. Free-- from them! And they fight to retain their previous status as martyrs just and true. The dhimmis demand that we applaud their deaths and dirty displays of slavery, and that we do so as underling slaves of dhimmis. They hate life, and they hate more still those of us who scoff at their "suffering" on our behalf. Who needs these fools when we have our own lives to live in freedom. It drives them to madness to be so ignored. They wish only to destroy our freedom, our Revolutions.

Until the rise of the Industrial Revolution, man was trapped by the slavery of energy: that man's energy is limited to nearly nothing, and that if man demands power, he must harness the energies of other men to become powerful. Slavery. Machines make movement possible that man alone cannot achieve no matter how enslaved he is. Machines make freedom possible through energy man can never achieve alone, no matter how many men sweat and die for it. energy is freedom. Machines provide both in abundance. It is a revolution the likes of which man could not dream till it began to unfold in Britain 250 years ago. Even then it drove men mad to see the skies turned black with smoke like Satan's mills belching across England's green and pleasant lands. That black, choking smoke was a by-product of freedom for mankind. To this day many hate it.

As men left the fields to tend machines in new-formed cities, they left the communal, the ties that bind, the fasces, as it is known in Latin, the weak bound round the strong authority of the state. Those bonds were broken by machines that free men from the fasces. Freedom for wage slavery? Give me more. I have no love of the commune, of its tender bonds of starvation and endless limitedness. But the community! We are all one! And I for one am certainly one, of myself alone, free from that. I hail the Revolution that has brought this freedom from "community." I am not a strand of the fasces any longer, bound tightly and forever to the authority of the power of the State. Me. Free.

The Left, using Islam as proxy, would destroy our freedom to regain their privilege as sadist owners of man as farm animal, powerless beast doing their work for them, they having no energy of their own. Their cries of "community" and the "sharing and caring" of the commune fall on my deaf ears. I'm too deaf to hear them from the pounding of my ploughshare into a sword. I love this revolution, and I intend to fight for its advance across the Earth into the World.

In the early decades of the nineteenth century there was, as there will be again, a movement of Manifest Destiny: that we are destined to spread our Revolution across the Earth to the World in the struggle to free all of mankind; freedom for all, a filibuster, as it was then called, an armed campaign to spread freedom everywhere to every man, a filibuster for universal Modernity. That, dear reader, is a revolutionary theory in the making.

If some squabble over the details of it, if they wish to dither and fiddle, then let them do so as is natural and right in nature. Meanwhile, let us look further at what is to be done.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." Genesis, 12:3. King James Bible

Trotsky or Jabotinsky.
Leon Trotsky (1879 – 21 August 1940), born Lev Davidovich Bronstein. During the early days of the Soviet Union, he served first as People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs and later as the founder and commander of the Red Army and People's Commissar of War. Born in Kirovohrad Oblast, Ukraine, child of a well-to-do farmer. He died in exile, assassinated in Mexico City.

Ze'ev Jabotinsky (1880 -- died August 4, 1940) was a Revisionist Zionist leader, author, orator, soldier, and founder of the Jewish Self-Defense Organization in Odessa. He also helped form the Jewish Legion of the British army in World War I, and was a founder and early leader of the militant Zionist underground organization, Irgun. Born in Odessa, Ukraine, he was raised in a Jewish middle-class home. He died in exile of a heart attack in New York City.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze%27ev_Jabotinsky

Born a year apart in Ukrainia, these men, writers, political theorists, founders of national armies, Trotsky and Jabotinsky, died in North American exile within weeks of each other. Those primal armies, now manned by the children of past ideologies, fight this deadly war today. Pick your Jew.

Today we pick our sides in our culture war according to our sympathy for world revolution and collectivism or we opt for privacy and Zionism. A little as most will be aware, we are deeply influenced by Trotskyites or by Jabotiniskyites. It's likely most people on the street haven't heard of either man. Ignorance seldom stops people from having ideas about issues. We follow, in a deep sense, one or the other of these men whether we know of them or not.

Most of us are automatically against fascism. We might not know what it means, but we know we hate it and that we hate fascists themselves because they are evil, they are racists, they are Nazis. So, when group names itself, "Unite Against Fascism" and declares it is against fascists, who would oppose that? Other than fascists, racists, and Nazis, of course.

Unite Against Fascism is an anti-fascist organisation in Britain. It describes itself as a national campaign with the aim of alerting British society to the threat of the far right — in particular the British National Party (BNP) — gaining a foothold at local, national and European elections, arguing that "there is a real danger that the BNP could get a significant platform in elected institutions."[1] Its chair is the former Labour Party mayor of London Ken Livingstone[2] and its joint secretaries are Weyman Bennett of the Socialist Workers Party and the Anti-Nazi League, and Sabby Dhalu, formerly of the National Assembly Against Racism (NAAR).

Stating that it seeks to unite a broad spectrum of society, the organisation has signatories and members from other mainstream political parties, including Conservative leader David Cameron, as well as trade union leaders, prominent members of the arts, bands and other organisations.

Maybe this is not all it seems to be. Maybe the UAF is just as bad as those they claim to be against. Maybe they're basically Trotskyites who have roped in fools like the buffoon leading the British Conservative Party, for example, a man too stupid to know what he's doing in politics.

More from wikipedia:

On 8 August 2009, UAF supporters and English Defence League supporters clashed at a protest planned by EDL in Birmingham, resulting in 35 arrests. ... On 10 October 2009, 1,400 UAF supporters gathered to oppose an EDL-organised demonstration in Manchester. Forty-eight people were arrested during the protests. ...

On 31 October 2009, about 1,500 UAF supporters met in Leeds city centre to stage a demonstration in opposition to a protest organised by the EDL, which was attended by up to 900 of their supporters. Eight people were arrested for public order offences after minor scuffles. West Yorkshire Police and Leeds City Council issued a joint statement in which they thanked the public and participants of both demontrations for their patience and consideration.

On Saturday, 20 March 2010 demonstrations from Unite Against Fascism (UAF) and the English Defence League (EDL) in Bolton led to violent confrontations and the arrest of at least 55 UAF supporters, including the UAF protest organiser Weyman Bennett, on suspicion of conspiracy to commit violent disorder. At least three EDL supporters were also arrested, and two UAF members were taken to hospital with a minor head and a minor ear injury. After Bennett was charged and released, he accused the police of being hostile to anti-racists and called for an inquiry into the police's actions that day. The police, while criticising the EDL for "vitriolic name-calling" blamed people predominantly associated with UAF for provoking violence and said that they "acted with, at times, extreme violence."

The point is that if the Left sets the political agenda, then Obama, for example, becomes a centrist, and Trokskyites become just more enthused Democrats. In effect, Trotsky, though not well-known to the average American, becomes popular and respectable in the form of Obama supporters on the left of the Left. Thus, having made no attempt to understand the situation, relying on the best good faith one has in public intellectuals, one chooses to support Trotsky over Jabotinsky. Who'd have thought?

In the UK in the 1980s, the entrist Militant tendency won three members of parliament and effective control of Liverpool City Council while in the Labour Party. Described as "Britain's fifth most important political party" in 1986[48] it played a prominent role in the 1989–1991 mass anti-poll tax movement which was widely thought to have led to the downfall of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Almost all of the large far left parties in the UK are led by Trotskyists, including the Socialist Workers Party (Britain), the Socialist Party (England and Wales), Respect – The Unity Coalition and the Scottish Socialist Party.

Obama has more in common with the left of the Democratic Party than he does with the Left of the Republican Party. When he's informed by Trotsyites, as is obvious from the influence of labour unionists among the Democratic Party's left, one sees that Sarh Palin is, as a likely unconscious supporter of Jabotinsky, a "fascist." But, do American leftist unions actually spout Trotsky at union meetings? No more so than does Sarah Palin recite Jabotinsky. But there those men stand, forever opposed, always at war, and our influences whether we know of them or not. Obama is an "anti-Zionist" and Palin is a Zionist herself. Trotsky. Jabotinsky.

The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) claims to be the largest far left party in Britain.[1] It participates in a number of campaigns such as Unite Against Fascism and the Stop the War Coalition. The SWP has an industrial department which co-ordinates its work within the trade unions and a student section, the Socialist Workers' Student Society, that has groups at a number of universities.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Jakarta (AsiaNews) /London - Thousands of Muslim extremists attacked a Christian educational center in Bogor regency, West Java province, Indonesia. The toll from yesterday's attack is three destroyed cars and several buildings damaged or burnt. The wrath of fundamentalists was unleashed, and encouraged by the local Council of Ulema (MUI), by unsubstantiated rumours that the Christian community BKP Penabur were planning "to build a place of worship" within the complex. And, the upcoming visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the United Kingdom has been soured--to the point where some Vatican officials have considered calling it off--by a scabrously anti-Catholic memo written by a British civil servant and circulated among senior officials by way of "preparing" for the papal visit. The document suggested that an "ideal" papal trip would include the pope blessing a same-sex union, reversing the Catholic Church's teaching on the ordination of women, opening an abortion clinic, and launching a brand of "Pope Benedict" condoms. Issued by the Papal Visit Team which was devoted to making the visit go smoothly, the document circulated through Britain's Whitehall and through 10 Downing Street without raising an eyebrow--until it was leaked to the Sunday Telegraph. ...

Targeted attacks against the Christian community continue in the regency of Bogor, coupled with the impotence of the Indonesian authorities unable to stop the violence with a religious background. Yesterday morning, thousands of Islamic extremists attacked and set fire to the center of the Foundation Penabur BPK, despite the garrison erected earlier by hundreds of police. Meanwhile, In response, British officials quickly apologized, and announced that the responsible party had been verbally reprimanded, and shifted to other duties. Note that he wasn't fired, he isn't living in hiding under 24-hour guard, and that the streets did not fill with crowds of ranting Irish and Polish youths demanding his death. There hasn't been an international campaign of violence and intimidation aimed at Englishmen. The bigoted bureaucrat was simply shifted to another job. ...

The fundamentalists destroyed and burned three cars a part of the 10 buildings that make up the whole Christian complex. The Muslims anger was spurred on by rumours that the leaders of the foundation wanted to construct a chapel. The rumours were groundless, but were enough to ignite minds and incite the crowd. Local sources, on condition of anonymity, tell AsiaNews that the attackers were "people from the neighbouring sub-districts Cisaura and Ciawi. One detail that, in reality, shows the attacks were well orchestrated.... It later emerged that the author of the memo is Oxford-educated Anjoum Noorani, 31, whose official title was Head of the Papal Visit Team. According to the Daily Mail, "Mr Noorani is understood to be British Pakistani - but colleagues say he is not a Muslim." The paper didn't specify if Noorani is an ex-Muslim, or (which seems very unlikely) a member of the tiny minority of persecuted Pakistani Christians, whose family was lucky enough to escape. If he is a secularized Muslim, Noorani's case suggests that the "best-case" scenario for Muslim assimilation in Britain is this: Those who give up their aggressive, intolerant faith in Islam will adopt instead the aggressive, intolerant secularism of the British elites--who use "multiculturalism" as a stick with which to beat just one set of institutions: those traditional to the West.

With the kerfuffle in Arizona recently over the immigration bill SB1070 I have to wonder why many American people want to live in America at all. I conclude, again, that many Americans actually do not want to live in America: They want instead to live in PhantasyLand. They remain on American soil only because they can't imagine having to actually move to some other place where they know no one, have no incomes, don't know the language or culture, and have no support from the people for much of anything that makes live bearable. They don't want to be strangers. They don't want the hassles of moving to a new place, even if, as they claim too often, they hate America. So America becomes divided into what I have referred to as a checker board nation: a state here is red, next one is black, and so on. We can't land on each others' squares. I refer to it as the 50 Confederate States of America. It's an incivil war.

Mayor Gavin Newsom this week suspended all non-essential travel for city employees going to Arizona, meaning no conference in Scottsdale next weekend for members of the city's housing authorities. The city's Board of Supervisors also has taken the first step toward an economic boycott, a move that could result in the suspension of existing contracts with Arizona-based companies and a ban on new ones.

Tit for tat, I'm not going to California. To me it's a foreign place I don't care for. I love America. What is America? For some it's a place to go to to grab whatever is possible at any cost. It's just a passing gravy train to be looted. For too many it's about the money. And that's it.For others it's our homeland and nation, a place to live and to build in. It's a place to love. It's a place we do love.

The state of Arizona has passed a law recently that angers Leftists, if we may include some of our top federal government leaders under such rubric. The law concerns illegal dwellers in our nation, "illegal immigrants." On the face of it, illegal is illegal. Ours is, or was, a nation of positive, i.e. man-made laws, Ratinalist laws based on legal equality for every citizen and legal resident, which makes our nation far different from those nations that have rule by fiat, by whim, by privileged and well-born aristocrats or worse, by theocrats who get their visions of law from Allah. Wow, things have changed. We seem determined to find our laws at fault any time they veer from "justice." Law, in my understanding of it, is law, not justice at all. If we want justice, then I think most of us would be hanged by the age of ten, assuming you and most others are like I was as a kid. No justice, thank you. I leave that to religious thinkers and a possible after-life. For now, let us have Rational, imperfect, alterable and changing laws that reflect the daily changes in our situations. But let's not go crazy and toss all the laws and make them up as we go along just because. Laws usually, but not always, work, and we know that because they have worked in the past for centuries and millennia. Let's tinker when we must, but our Revolution is over. We live a civil life in common. We have our laws. Even if the federal government doesn't like us having them. Or so is the case of Arizona.

The federal government may go to court to challenge Arizona's new law that makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally, Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday.

President Barack Obama also criticized the law, saying it could lead to harassment of Hispanics.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also voiced reservations about the new state law, saying it could siphon federal money and staff from hunting down dangerous immigrants.

The new law requires all immigrants and visitors to carry U.S.-issued documents or risk arrest. Police can question anyone about their immigration status if they have reason to suspect they are in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime if they are.

The farther away from my house a law-maker is the less I trust him to make good laws. If he demands justice, then I really start to sweat. If a law makes illegality a crime, then I have to wonder what the crime is, not who the person is. But if we make an action illegal, then it's already a crime, and justice has nothing to do with it. If the law is wrong, we change it. That's what our courts are for. It's why we vote. If we vote and are over-ruled by Philosopher Kings who demand justice, then I won't be returning home for a long time yet.

I love a lot of music from the 60s, but the lyrics to much of the music really suck, and the laws these hippies make are worse than the lyrics. I wish they'd go away and leave the rest of us in peace, love, and brotherhood, man. Dig it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhdiSqt6sXE

We find ourselves, we private citizens and ordinary folk of Western nations, increasingly under siege from a large coalition of, for lack of a better general term, collectivist, pseudo-Marxist "Povertarians." I use the term frequently, though it's not well-known and less understood. Briefly, "Povertrianism" refers to a concerted campaign among collectivists to return Man to a usual historical state of being a farm animal. That attempt, or desire, is "reactionary," that term coming to us from those who reacted violently to the French Revolution, meaning those who were against the revolutionary "progress" of the Revolution.

Today, those who deem themselves "Progressives" are indistinguishable from yesteryear's reactionaries. We see these would-be aristocrats in government, journalism, the academy, and so on: our intelligentsia, attempting to destroy the personal wealth of individuals to the point that men are not able to care for their own needs and those of their families and communities. It is a return, this reactionary programme, to the feudal ages. Man, without money, without a money economy, becomes again a peasant, tied to the land, incapable of free movement in search of his own needs and wants, what we might loosely call personal freedom.

It is an attempt to make all men "poor but spiritual" rather than the greedy, Earth-destroying things we are as free people in a money, that is to say a capital, marketplace. I call this reactionary, so-called Progressive, programme Povertarianism.

Take away, for example, a man's car and one has condemned a man to moving half the distance from home that he can walk in a day. He still has to get home at night. No car, no go no where.

In himself a man has no horse power. Horses have that, but not men. Man is not an efficient beast of burden. To the extent he is and to the extent there is nothing better than human labour, slavery results. No horse power, no freedom for men. Thus, I find myself lauding oil companies as saviours of Human Freedom. Go figure. But without them, and this seems to be a big push among Progressives, we will end up stuck on the farm with no money to move away from our oppression, stuck with whatever treatment the State wishes to impose on us. Many collectivists claim they don't like oil companies because they create conditions of ecological catastrophe. I think they lie. I think they would be quite happy with ecological catastrophe if only it were to provide them with further power over the common man. If we were to ban oil companies, ban cars, ban the works, we'd still see pollution, and poverty that would induce tears of joy in the Povertarian. We'd be starving peasants again, probably incapable of the violence of the French Revolution. For the Povertarian, what's not to love? This infantalisation of the masses, like taking the kid's car keys to punish him, is the nature of our governments' actions against us as free people. Locked down, impoverished, dependent on government for our every need. I call foul.

Let's turn to pollution, here in the form of horse manure. I bring this to our attention so we can see just how good it is to live in a Modern world. We really don't need ecology types telling us that we have to stop being wealthy. They can have it. To me, likely to you, ecology and anti-Modernism is a steaming pile of ... well, you'll see.

A one thousand pound horse produces approximately fifty pounds of manure per day or about ten tons per year. In addition, from six to ten gallons of urine is produced which when soaked up by bedding can constitute another fifty pounds daily. Therefore, four horses in stalls can produce 160,000 pounds of manure and wet bedding per year. That is a mountain of manure by anyone's standards.

A horse will on average produce between 15 and 35 pounds of manure per day. Consequently, the streets of nineteenth-century cities were covered by horse manure. This in turn attracted huge numbers of flies, and the dried and ground-up manure was blown everywhere. In New York in 1900, the population of 100,000 horses produced 2.5 million pounds of horse manure per day, which all had to be swept up and disposed of. (See Edwin G. Burrows and Mike Wallace, Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898 [New York: Oxford University Press, 1999])

[....]

The larger and richer that cities became, the more horses they needed to function. The more horses, the more manure. Writing in the Times of London in 1894, one writer estimated that in 50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure. Moreover, all these horses had to be stabled, which used up ever-larger areas of increasingly valuable land. And as the number of horses grew, ever-more land had to be devoted to producing hay to feed them (rather than producing food for people), and this had to be brought into cities and distributed—by horse-drawn vehicles. It seemed that urban civilization was doomed.

This is interesting in that in 1792 when William Moorecroft opened the first veterinary surgery at 224 Oxford St, London, there were 150,000 horses in London alone, (over a quarrter million by the 1820s.)

Freedom means a number of things we might not immediately see in it. It's not a luxury. It's the difference between life and death. When we give up our freedoms we'll soon find ourselves buried alive under tonnes of manure. Our struggle isn't just against Islam, though Muslims are the stick our elitist Philosopher Kings like to use to beat us with, it's against the elitists themselves; but it's as much a matter of fighting our own need not to make trouble. Like oil, freedom isn't free. If we want either, we have to pay.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Life can be very cruel, as I found out recently. I have often said so, that life is cruel, and to many people, but I meant it as a way of impressing women with my world-weary cynicism, hoping that I might get a date on the strength of it, not really believing it. Not until now, that is. Now I know that life really is cruel. I found out that I don't have any artistic talent at all. And all this time I thought I was a genius. Turns out that even if I borrowed all the artistic talent there is from Mark Rothko and Jackson Pollock I still wouldn't have any talent as an artist. That's cruel. All my famous cartoons and other works of fine art Mohammed stuff, they're not as artistic as I thought. Seems I don't have a speck of talent as an artist. And I don't care![Above: Dag-art of "Mohammed and the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs." Watercolour and ink. 2010.]

You know, dear reader, this isn't so much about me and my artistic abilities as it is about you and your right to express yourself by drawing Mohammed cartoons even if it upsets jihadis and sulky, thuggish leftards. It ain't about them. It's about you. Your right to freedom of speech is the central matter here, not the crap we get from those who make a life from being offended by anything they can dream up. Who cares what jihadis and leftards don't like? Not me. I hope you don't care either. I hope you don't care to the point that you too want to indulge whatever artistic abilities you might, or like me, might not have. You might like to submit a Motoon to the world just because you can. If people don't like it? So what. Just do what you think is your best Mo-effort, and I'll try to post it on the Internet for the world to see that free speech, even if it pisses off the leftards who love nothing better than being pissed off, even if it pisses off jihadis, and who cares what they think, you have a right, and a fair and honest right, to express yourself freely. Some will disagree. Fine, let them do their own cartoons about it.

Send your best Motoon to me and I'll try to post it on the Internet. I'm still Dag, but I'm at:

Islam isn't a religion like others, it is a political religion, one sworn to conquest and domination of all other religions and peoples. When Islam comes to a land, it queers the pitch for the locals, either kills them in the process of conquest, converts them to Islam, or turns them into dhimmis, i.e. those allowed to live on condition they pay jizya, or extortion tax. England today, and most nations not already subjugate by Islam, are under threat of Islamisation. That's the nature of Islam, though many refuse to accept the obvious reality of it. That refusal is based in part, I believe, on class hatred.

In Britain that class of haters is the intelligenstia. The intelligentsia, and those masochists who crawl for them, are the replacement population for the lost hereditary aristocracy of Europe and their serfs, slaves, and servants. There is in Europe today a new aristocracy of feudalist pretenders to the thrones of nations held, to an ever lessening degree, by the people as sovereign. Free countries, nations in which adult citizens are able to freely elect political representatives of their choice, are nations of free people, nations in which every citizen is his own king, as it were .

Many people hate the idea of "freedom." They might personally not like the idea of being free to make personal decisions, preferring to have someone in a position of authority make decisions for them, eg those who join groups to find a father-figure. They might hate the idea of another person they don't respect having the same freedom to be king that they have, legal equality being offensive to them, those who, for example hate Sarah Palin because she's "stupid" and love Obama because he's a "genius." The worst of the hating lot are those who hate the idea of people being kings in any respect, those who see only themselves as kings, the rabble unworthy of any freedom at all, the worst of this lot being Philosopher Kings. The intelligentsia, the smart set, the ones who know, the Gnostics who see how things should be and have the Will to Power to make it so even if they have to kill millions upon millions of stupid people to make their utopian visions come true. For all of those who hate freedom, the freedom they hate is the ability of others to ignore them and live private lives as they see fit. The sadists, the masochists, the Philospher Kings hate being treated like just any other fellow. They really do think themselves Kings-- or toadies. Yes, to ingratiate themselves before those more equal than themselves, some underlings used to swallow whole toads to show the king they knew their place in the social order. Today we call them dhimmis. They all hate freedom, individualism, privacy, personality, equality under the law. Like Muslims they want a system of complete submission.

But football wrecks the scheme, queers the pitch, disrupts the hierarchical playing field of the game going on. Football level the field for everyone, in its social way. The Philosopher Kings and their dhimmis hate it, as they have for centuries. Football, in its unique way, is equality in action.

Prior to the Enclosure Acts of the early 19th century, the commons were areas stretching from place to place where any man and any group of men could roam at will. Often times they roamed around kicking a ball, village to village, the game of football. With the enclosures came the need for pitches, for plots of public land for groups to play football in restricted areas. We could today call such games "turf wars." Some do. They call the players "street gangs." They call football players and their fans "hooligans." Those who have a place and a home where they play and owe some emotional loyalty to, they are oft times "the mob." Look at a large group of football fans from one place and see that they are a frightening sight to an elitist group who think of themselves as Philosopher Kings. Aggressive men running around out of control, what the genius of Sandwell, West Midlands, Yvonne Davis of the local council deems "tribal enthusiasm." Free people among their mates living their own lives with their own best abilities in play. Those who love slavery cannot stand football and its free play of personal abilities. The Philosopher Kings can't stand the mob. The people cheering locals and booing the far side team, it is "low." It's not the perfectly regulated utopia of the Philosopher Kings. That's one reason why football is essential to our survival as people free and able to win our own freedoms further, competing against ourselves and others for greater good. Not one world of masters and slave; but a home team of mates and heroes among us.

Freedom: keep that ball for the home team. Our team for our mates in our homes will save our freedom from the Philosopher Kings who'd otherwise have us toiling in the fields for their aesthetic enjoyment as they ride past and look at us from afar, well-regulated and orderly and perfectly submissive. Kick! It'll save the world.

When it comes to religious topics, I'm not so big on anything I can't dance to, which is why I'm seriously tempted to forget about Islam for a bit and stand up for Bob Marley, tempted to get up, stand up, stand up for my rights. What do I care about Muslims and their demanding and crazy b.s.? Why should their demands and their rampaging violence cause me any concern about my beliefs and behaviour? If I were a foul-mouthed fellow I'd have a lot to say to them right about now, all of it vile. But I'm not so much foul as a rule. That could change as, during the average day, I encounter ever more Islamic violence. In fact, I don't like anything about Islam. What's the big deal? What do I owe Muslims? Last I looked, that would be nothing at all. Nada. Screw Muslims.

Now, about this musical interlude I'm into. This Marley fellow has some raw talent, I think so, but he needs a hair cut and some lyric writer to fix up what should be a pretty good tune. Something along the lines of "To Hell with Islam and wanker Muslims."

Almost everyone is drawing Mohammed these days. Well, I decided to draw the ultimate critical piece of Mohammed art portraiture in history. You'll see, dear art snob, that I have thrown at Mohammed the last criticism possible. I can't do better, and I challenge others to even try to out-do this devastating rendering of Mohammed. Here he is, criticised to death and beyond.So take that, Muslim whingers! Take a look at the look in Mohammed's eyes! Even half his nose has fallen off from shock; and that bit of beard to the bottom left is about all that's left. His ears are both on the same side of his face because I'm doing a bit of Picasso here. Otherwise it looks pretty realistic. And devastating. Islam is dead. This portrait proves it.

The woman who started "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is quitting. Not everyone is a hero. Not every quiet person is a coward. And not everyone who wants to draw Mohammed has my astounding artistic abilities. We do our best.

The Seattle artist whose anti-censorship cartoon has helped spawn "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" says she wants no part of the May 20 event, which is gaining momentum online.

"I made a cartoon that went viral but [this campaign] isn't really my thing," cartoonist Molly Norris tells Comic Riffs, characterizing her cartoon as merely a personal response to Comedy Central's censorship of a "South Park" episode last week. "Other folks have taken it over" -- an appropriation she says she is distancing herself from.

Postings on the Islamic website RevolutionMuslim.com led to Comedy Central's editing last week of a "South Park" speech about fear and intimidation, the show's creators have said. That network censorship has spawned another cartoon event: Everybody Draw Muhammad Day -- a campaign that might not be so easily quieted.

[....]

The growing campaign now includes a Facebook page titled Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. On Saturday night, the page had fewer than 1,500 "confirmed guests"; as of Monday morning (ET), the page was nearing 6,000 signed-up guests.

England has a law under which, if one hasn't committed a crime, there's still a way for the courts to toss a man in gaol. It's the ASBO. Today we see the Brits have nabbed a fellow for mentioning (among other things,) in hand-made leaflets left at an aero port that Muslims are causing trouble at aero ports. Uh-oh, Mr. Taylor. Hands up. It's the P.C. police!

An Anti-Social Behaviour Order [ASBO] ... is a civil order made against a person who has been shown, on the balance of evidence, to have engaged in anti-social behaviour in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland. The orders, designed originally by Tony Blair in 1998, were designed to be imposed after minor incidents that would not ordinarily warrant prosecution. The orders then restrict behavior in some way, by prohibiting a return to a certain area or shop, or by restricting public behavior such as swearing or drinking. As the ASBO is a civil order, the defendant has no right to evidence that might disprove the assertions of the plaintiff, though violating an ASBO can incur up to five years imprisonment.

An atheist who left leaflets mocking Jesus, Islam and the Pope in an international airport’s prayer room has been given an Asbo. Harry Taylor, 59, from Salford, left home-made posters at Liverpool John Lennon Airport three times in 2008.

[....]

He had adapted newspaper and magazine cartoons and added captions of his own. But some went way beyond exercising freedom of expression, prosecutor Neville Biddle said, including one that linked Muslims to attacks on airports.

Muslims attacks on airports? Is that ringing some bells here? Why, yes, dear, I think it is. What could it be? Off the top of my head, maybe these incidents had something to do with it:

The 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack occurred on Saturday 30 June 2007, at 15:11 BST, when a dark green Jeep Cherokee loaded with propane canisters was driven into the glass doors of the Glasgow International Airport terminal and set ablaze.[3] It was the first terrorist attack to take place in Scotland since the Lockerbie bombing in 1988,[4] and the first terrorist attack ever to target Scotland. The attack occurred three days after the appointment of Glasgow-born Scottish MP Gordon Brown as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but Downing Street dismissed suggestions of a connection,[5] although a close link was quickly established to the foiled attack on London the previous day.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_International_Airport_attack

The 2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot was an alleged Islamist terrorist plot to blow up a system of jet fuel supply tanks and pipelines that feed fuel to John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) in Queens, New York. These pipelines travel throughout the undergrounds of New York City in densely populated areas. The alleged plot was foiled when an undercover law enforcement official was recruited to the homegrown terrorist cell.

Northwest Airlines Flight 253 was an international passenger flight from Amsterdam Airport Schiphol in Amsterdam, Netherlands, to Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport in Detroit, Michigan, United States. The flight was the target of a failed al-Qaeda bombing attempt on Christmas Day, December 25, 2009, in which a passenger tried to set off plastic explosives sewn to his underwear. 290 people were on board the plane, which was operated by Northwest Airlines.

The suspected bomber was 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who had concealed plastic explosives in his underwear but failed to detonate them properly, resulting in flames and popping noises.

The 2002 Los Angeles Airport shooting was a terrorist attack by a lone gunman on an airline ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. On July 4, 2002, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, a 41-year-old Egyptian national, opened fire on a line of people at the El Al Airline airport ticket counter, killing two and wounding four others at Los Angeles International Airport. He was shot dead by a security guard for the Israeli airline. The FBI concluded this was terrorism, although the gunman acted alone. In September 2002, federal investigators concluded that Hadayet hoped to influence U.S. government policy in favor of the Palestinians, and that the incident was a terrorist act. The attack was similar to the Rome and Vienna Airport Attacks.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Los_Angeles_Airport_shooting

The Lod Airport massacre was a terrorist attack that occurred on May 30, 1972, in which three members of the Japanese Red Army, on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), killed 26 people and injured 80 others at Tel Aviv's Lod airport (now Ben Gurion International Airport).

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Fooled again! The South Park death threats are actually a Zionist plot to make Muslims look bad.

I was beginning to think that our cultural and intellectual leaders are little more than terrified fools and abject cowards who can't face the thought of a terrifying 20 year old loser from Virginia, a kid who couldn't get a date in highschool, a kid who dresses up like one of the shepherds in a grade-school nativity play. Pretty scary, I admit, if one is removed from the usual man by living and working in a sky-scraping office tower in Manhattan and making millions moving and shaking the cultural world. Yeah, why risk it over mere America when one stands a less-than-zero chance of being castigated by a wanna-be jihadi? The horror, right? So there was me, thinking the Comedy Central exec.s were nothing more than cringing, puky cowards. How wrong was I!? Turns out they were in serious trouble after all. It's the Jooos! Whoa. I quake too. The Zionazis! I squeek. That's how scared I am.

In a FoxNews.com report on the poster of the threat (click here), Ibrahim Hooper is interviewed and he makes this statement:

“They say wild and irresponsible things periodically,” Hooper told FoxNews.com. “There’s a strong suspicion that they’re merely a setup to make Muslims and Islam look bad. They say such wild and crazy things that you have to wonder.”

Yup, in his mind, RevolutionMuslim.com might be a false front by anti-Muslim bigots. A few years ago, I met two of the people who wrote for this site. They spewed anti-Semitic, anti-American venom. If they are actors sent to “make Muslims and Islam look bad,” then they deserve Oscars....

And this evil genius is? Pretty damned scary to look at. I cringe. You cringe. Our intelligentsia are really cringing from fear of this monster.

Zachary Chesser, or as he currently styles himself, Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee. This 20-year-old from Fairfax, Va., trolling away on his blog, was able to get Comedy Central to censor one of the most popular and lucrative shows in its lineup merely by suggesting that Stone and Parker might meet the same fate that befell Theo Van Gogh when he “outraged” Muslim sensibilities.

One must wonder about the will of Allah that has suddenly descended upon me, humble artiste that I am. I am cranking out Muslim master pieces the likes of which the world has never before seen. Below we have my latest work, Mohammed and the twelve Shi'a Imams. I'm nearly blown away.For inspiration I used a model who looks very much like Telly Savalas in the movie The Dirty Dozen, to depict the Twelfth Imam, Imam Maggot, who resides in a well in occultation awaiting too, like all of us, the call of Amadinejed of Iran.

Till that happy day, I just keep painting cartoons. I'm a genius, and I can't stop myself. It must be the Will of Allah.

I spent a great deal of time and energy, as you'll see immediately, in drawing this latest work, a Sunni-inspired master work of Mohammed and the Seven Rightly Guided Caliphs.I see in it a great debt to the Romantic painter David, a Muslimesque version of Napoleon on horseback. One thing about this guy, I ain't afraid to acknowledge my artistic debits to others.

For those new to Art History, allow me to explain that this Dag-master piece depicts Mohammed giving lessons in Shari'a to the Seven Rightly Guided, i.e. Sunni caliphs: Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Ali, Snorky, Dorky, and Porky. Notice too the subtle display of pages of the Qur'an laid out before the caliphs. It's that kind of subtlety that makes it art. It's Mohammed and the Seven Rightly Guided Caliphs that makes it Islamic. And it's my special talent that makes it a Dag-master piece.